Author
Topic: Photokina 2010 Report (Read 55966 times)

gabriele

About the new Sigma 85mm f/1.4...I've read what you wrote and this is the second time they behave like this!When I went to the italian Photoshow there was the Sigma stand and they said they didn't know ANYTHINGabout a Sigma 85mm f/1.4...I don't get how it is possible that other people know more than people workingat Sigma...maybe they hire people just for the show?I mean before it was just presented but not on their website but now it's there they should, they must knowanything about it and it's so weird that they didn't even present it officially at Photokina, I really don't get it!

peejay

You're right. Capture One is nice to use, but for Canon, the results are far greater shooting tethered into DPP. It just looks how it's suppose to. I don't like the way Capture One renders the Canon files, flatter, off colour, depending of corse which shooting profile you are using.

Shame DPP is such a slug to use.

I have no problem getting a look the client likes with C1. But I do like DPP, and do use it to convert/correct some things I shoot on location. Too bad that Canon hasn't put the effort into developing what could be a really superior program.

No, nor I. But I find after tweaking the Capture One file to look like the DPP file, the quality takes a slight dip. Detail in shadow and highlight is never the same. DPP just works. But I've devised a system that bypasses DPP for editing and viewing just purely for ease of use.

« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 05:34:40 AM by peejay »

Logged

richy

Re nikon af, its the same af sensor but the motors arent as good on the d3 and to make it fair you need to understand that the difference between the d700 and d3 doesnt need to be as big as the difference between the 5d2 and 1ds3 because the price difference isnt as great. Canon could have done it but my bet is marketing and the bean counters decided that hobbling the 1ds3 sensor was win win compared to say producing a 5d2 with maybe 16mp and better af because its a marketing win to offer 21mp @ that price and a manufacturing win because they are using stuff already in the parts bin. Canon chose to go great hi res sensor and mediocre af, nikon chose a mediocre res (not disrespecting the quality of it) sensor and great af. Neither put all their best stuff in the midrange cameras nor will they normally go toe to toe. The d3 isnt a 1ds3, the d3x is what it lines up against. The d3 goes up against the 1d3/4. The 1d4 puts more pixels on a given target, the d3 is cleaner for a given 100x100 pixel grid. The actual affect of the noise increase isn't much because the pixels themselves are smaller, people rant about how a 12mp sensor is better then a 24 for noise but make two equal size prints and see, whilst the variance per pixel will be higher @ 24mp the impact of that variance will be lower on a pixel basis as the pixels are smaller. I'm not saying canons way is better or worse, its just a different approach which does have merit. Once you see 16x20 prints from both the difference in noise is minimal (but it is there, although you are into noise vs pixelation).

Re tethering, tried it with dslrs, its alright but not normally something id do outside of product shots. The closed vs open debate is interesting, I can see the logic in the closed system as its hopefully easier to avoid compatibility issues. the new $13k 31mp hassie might be a game changer. The markets getting interesting in the 10k range and those top flight dslrs will have to make some jumps to keep in that price range.

richy

exactly 1d4 shooters wouldnt switch but 1ds4 buyers are prime targets. Admittedly you are probably still looking at spending 40-50k to get 2 bodies, accessories and lenses, but thats down a lot from a few years ago where to do it properly you needed 90-140k.

Prices are coming down fast. The Mamiya DM 22 with Leaf back is $9,995.00. With22 megapixel sensor, and true 16 bit/channel Raw files will give better images than 1Ds III or Nikon D3x for not much more money. BTW the DM 22 comes with a 80mm f/2.8 D Series Lens.

What will the 1Ds IV or Nikon D4 cost? Are the prices staying the same, going up or going down?

Edwin Herdman

What will the 1Ds IV or Nikon D4 cost? Are the prices staying the same, going up or going down?

Compared to that DM 22, downward, which is all that matters. The battle is increasingly being waged and won in 35mm format - what used to be 35mm format territory is now being won by even cell phone cameras. I'm not sure what the point of that Mamiya - Leaf combination is. You get just a 22mp sensor made with older technology, a bigger box than a DSLR, and lenses even heavier, with less utility, and more expensive than full-frame ones made by 35mm format manufacturers.

richy

What will the 1Ds IV or Nikon D4 cost? Are the prices staying the same, going up or going down?

Compared to that DM 22, downward, which is all that matters. The battle is increasingly being waged and won in 35mm format - what used to be 35mm format territory is now being won by even cell phone cameras. I'm not sure what the point of that Mamiya - Leaf combination is. You get just a 22mp sensor made with older technology, a bigger box than a DSLR, and lenses even heavier, with less utility, and more expensive than full-frame ones made by 35mm format manufacturers.

You get a sensor over twice the size. This affects things like DOF and voodoo micro contrast. You also get 16bit, true 16 bit not padded 14 bit, no AA filter!! You also get a different approach. I'm not a huge rangefinder fan because the lenses dont suit me, but when you talk to RF fans about why they spend 10x the cost of a dslr on a camera with less features they usually talk about how it makes you see and how it changes the way you shoot. I shoot an rz67 from time to time and have done for years, and the fact that you don't just blast away with it does change your shooting. Having a huge ass WLF is awesome as well. I'm not saying that plonking a 1ds next to a dm22 is going to be a hands down win every time to the dm22, but the point is that its a different approach and for some people and some uses it is better. The big thing for everyone here is that whilst there has been a degradation of the pricing in low and mid range dslrs there hasn't really in the 1 series. Having the pressure of MFD will either force a price shift or it will force some serious evolution of the cameras. The 1ds is vulnerable, its not mainly a sports camera, its a studio camera primarily which is one area the mamiyas would do very well against it. Tethered with great lighting the mamiya would deliver amazing quality files. As for weddings and events, then you are looking at 9k for a canon or 13k for a hassie, now thats a serious question whereas before it was 9k or 40k. This can only be good!!

Edwin Herdman

I'm not saying that plonking a 1ds next to a dm22 is going to be a hands down win every time to the dm22, but the point is that its a different approach and for some people and some uses it is better.

My point is still that when people describe the "allure" or "feeling" of MF, gut or otherwise, I can't help but think there's nothing concrete to MF's credit over 35mm, besides 100mm+ lenses being considered close to normal. There's been a huge gap in quality between APS-C and 35mm "full frame" sensors for years, but the medium format companies don't have the systems integrated, or (from what I understand) designed - even, according to a number of folks, the R&D put in the sensors themselves - well enough to do much more than keep pace with 35mm cameras in terms of image quality, let alone in features. True 16-bit? Man, feels like the early 1990s again.

In any case, slow is not the goal of photography. Instantaneous is. If I want slow I plonk on the TS-E and compose through the viewfinder (curse you, Canon, for not letting it focus past infinity!), and focus with Live View - that's plenty slow for me. I almost did that tonight in the dark, though I just slapped the focus to infinity and bracketed some shots. Of maybe 95% of my photography recently (which is pretty non-serious at this point), a third are still life (stuff for eBay, a frog sitting on a chair outside), and two thirds are straight architectural / landscape. So yeah, I do slow already, and I don't like slow as a goal of technique - being an artist means, to me, that you sometimes get a flash of inspiration and by the time I've fetched my camera enough time may have passed that the moment to frame what I've seen is gone. I don't like fiddlefarting around with the autofocus - sometimes yes, sometimes no - on my T1i, and I don't like the thought of spending a hundred Benjamins on a system which it is not clear has a system as up to date, just because Live View has become standard and I should manually focus. I would rather have the option and keep my money. Older methods shouldn't be forced in any situation. (I'm sure I'm showing off my MF ignorance a fair deal here; I'm trying to be balanced, but I've seen and heard enough to be fairly certain that MF systems are years behind 35mm ones, in specifics and in general.) To be sure, I agree with the "start simple" method of learning photography (95% of all my pictures have been done with two primes, the TS-E and the 50mm f/1.4, which I shot exclusively when starting out; just as importantly, I started with a relatively simple camera), but that's something different.

We can talk about studio photographers, but a 35mm camera gives somebody an edge in freedom of motion. That is a monetary proposition. Who wants to be stuck inside when you can be outside, anyway? Being stuck to a studio - tethered to a computer like the bad old days of scanning backs - immediately puts such a system at a disadvantage in locking out event / wedding photographers, who are very close in some ways to a studio photographer (imo) and more likely to do have business interests in both fields. If anything I think it's more likely for a person to be a traveling photographer with a studio business on the side, rather than the other way around. There isn't any reason there cannot be a camera that suits their needs in the studio and in the field.

Quote

The big thing for everyone here is that whilst there has been a degradation of the pricing in low and mid range dslrs there hasn't really in the 1 series. Having the pressure of MFD will either force a price shift or it will force some serious evolution of the cameras.

I think the evidence is pretty clear that DSLRs have cut the knees out from under the MF market, and now they're working on the stumps. A $3K premium for no apparent benefit in functionality on old-fashioned bodies that seem (almost channeling Ken Rockwell there) based on 20 year old designs and late-adoption leftovers from DSLR design, and which furthermore don't really seem to provide knockout quality (on average) compared to 35mm format with all the new bells and whistles, doesn't seem a good overall investment to me. Medium Format does more than respectably well in DxOMark, but when cameras (or I should say backs) are released that infrequently, your investment and competitiveness with cameras that are much more up-to-date are endangered by the end of the term more than if you had bought a cheaper DSLR body.

Simple economic sense would seem to validate your claim that this pressure - and expanded options - is good for the market, but consider: MF buyers recently seem to have been faced (from what I gather) with the most uncertain future in assured supplies of equipment, with most MF manufacturers going out of business yet still likely employing experts in the field who would be assets to 35mm development. Who wants to buy into MF when it's uncertain that the manufacturer will survive from this year to the next?

There was a lot of clucking in certain quarters about video on DSLRs, and there still are many problems with it, but people are putting it to good use, and finding new excitement and new blood in photography than ever before (and the numbers on the explosion of EOS DSLRs confirms this). The 35mm manufacturers seem to be inundated with requests for new features like never before, and compromises may start to become fewer as the 35mm market is trending towards professionals and enthusiasts. In some ways it seems like a continuation of the split between point and shoot 35mm cameras and SLRs from some years ago; a 35mm SLR never really could be underspecced compared to a point-and-shoot, or overspecced compared to any other 35mm camera; the major differences mainly were the results of mechanical differences, like interchangeable lenses, film winders even.

But now even 35mm format cameras are fighting to stay relevant when even point-and-shoot cameras can have sophisticated movie modes and other features - cell phones are following quickly. You don't need a winder anymore to take rapid bursts of pictures. I think the energy is coming from the bottom of the price range on up, and certainly price competition follows as well. Canon whet my appetite with the T1i, and now they've got me suckered into looking at upgrading already. This is what we've seen play out with the D7000 versus the 60D: a "lower tier" camera introduction was seen popularly as a victory against a the latest offering in a repositioned formerly semipro line. I have argued against too much focus on the cyclical updates causing people to spend too much money on cheap cameras, but at least users have the option of setting their own update cycled. You can update every year if you need to (and have a plan to justify it, like selling the old model) or you can update every three. This is pretty good compared to most MF systems where your next upgrade will be never, because the manufacturers have closed up shop.

Sorry for the extreme length of the post, and for anything unfair I said.

« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 03:52:30 AM by Edwin Herdman »

Logged

richy

Nothing unfair 35mm has oodles of functionality that MF doesn't have and for a lot of photography thats a deal breaker. Sorry if my ridiculing myself over the benefits of MF didnt come through enough Many tech heads talk about microcontrast and 16bits when defending MFD, beyond no AA filter I have no idea why there is a difference. Most of my experience is MF film not the digital side, I do shoot 35mm digital (hence me being on a canon forum lol) and lots of my income comes from what that digital can do. You are entirely correct that it gives so much freedom that you lose with MF. However, for some forms of photography there are still some advantages to MF. If I chose to buy something it comes out of my pocket and therefore my kids pockmets yet I keep a 6x7 system because it can give great results. Canon have been saying they have slayed MF for years but theyre still designing new MF cameras. Sure theyre smaller companies and there has been market contraction, but MF has one important irrefuteable advantage. The sensor or film is much larger therefore more light for digital pixels. I wouldnt be considering dropping 40k on a system if i didnt think it was worth it, i would be shooting with a $20 zenit if i thought it would deliver results lol.For landscapes and ever portraits MF is great, despite what people say they are handholdable, and syncing at 800 or 1600 is awesome. HSS doesnt cut it. Its at best a bodge job. Really syncing at 1/800 is awesome. As a wedding tog all I can say is I like how things are heading and canon are going to lose my money to mamiya. The 5d2 and 7d offer me enough to get that side of the job done, if 2xmfd is going to be in the same ballpark as a brace of 1ds4's then awesome. I'm not attempting to convert anyone else but I love the best of both worlds.On the upgrade front, the systems are pretty robust to that, I dont see the mamiya p1 system dieing out in the next 10 years and part of the attraction is the longevity. I might have killed my dslrs within 12 months of shooting but the mf kit is running smooth 8 years later without any maintenance. contax 645 is dead, pentax i wouldnt bet on but mamiya and hassie should be around for a while.Its also worthwhile considering why leica went doubleframe with the s2. The af is much better as well these days so thats some added functionality.

richy

The goal of photography is instantaneous? Do you feel thats universal? Its an interesting statement and Im not questioning the validity of it. Its just totally different to how I view the goal.

Re tethering, it depends on the situation, it can be quite liberating knowing you can be seeing the work on a calibrated 30inch monitor as you are shooting, but primarily the benefits come down to making life easier. I love being a photographer, but i love it more when its easier!

Plus its optional tethering, you can when you want, or you can tether 'in the wild' to a laptop or you can shoot on the back. Its just added flexibility. I find myself tethering the dslrs more for landscape stuff these days.

..., I can't help but think there's nothing concrete to MF's credit over 35mm, ... well enough to do much more than keep pace with 35mm cameras in terms of image quality, let alone in features.

What CaNikon has a 53.9x40.4 mm 60.5mp sensor ?

Quote

...(I'm sure I'm showing off my MF ignorance a fair deal here; I'm trying to be balanced, but I've seen and heard enough to be fairly certain that MF systems are years behind 35mm ones, in specifics and in general.)

Many times the focus sensor isn't where you want it to be, so you focus and recompose. The problem is that after you have focused on the eye and recomposed the focus is off slightly. Well the Hasselblad True Focus refines the focus using a yaw sensor. Read about it here http://www.hasselbladusa.com/promotions/apl.aspx Does CaNikon have anything like this?

Quote

We can talk about studio photographers, but a 35mm camera gives somebody an edge in freedom of motion.

Ever shoot with a medium format camera? I prefer a Medium Format over a CaNikon Pro Body (with built-in grip). I find them more ergonomic. But a 5D or D700 is better than both.

Quote

I think the evidence is pretty clear that DSLRs have cut the knees out from under the MF market, and now they're working on the stumps.

A lot of Pros disagree with you. MFD sales are good.

Quote

A $3K premium for no apparent benefit in functionality ... furthermore don't really seem to provide knockout quality (on average) compared to 35mm format with all the new bells and whistles, doesn't seem a good overall investment to me ...

Once again, have you ever used a MFD? If you haven't how do you know that your statements are true? BTW the wants/needs vary from photographer and many Pros think MFD is a good investment YMMV.

Quote

Simple economic sense would seem to validate your claim that this pressure - and expanded options - is good for the market, but consider: MF buyers recently seem to have been faced (from what I gather) with the most uncertain future ...Who wants to buy into MF when it's uncertain that the manufacturer will survive from this year to the next?

Fuji owns Hasselblad and isn't going anywhere. BTW Fuji released a MF Film camera last year, an it is selling well. Phase One owns Mamiya and Leaf, it isn't going anywhere either.

BTW Leica has their new S2, so I guess they think the MFD market will survive. And Pentax announced at Photokina that the 645D will be available worldwide.

Quote

... In some ways it seems like a continuation of the split between point and shoot 35mm cameras and SLRs from some years ago; a 35mm SLR never really could be underspecced compared to a point-and-shoot ...

Terry Richardson and Juergen Teller made their reputations using Film P&S cameras. Nothing wrong with a P&S if you have something to say and talent.

Quote

But now even 35mm format cameras are fighting to stay relevant when even point-and-shoot cameras can have sophisticated movie modes and other features - cell phones are following quickly. ... This is pretty good compared to most MF systems where your next upgrade will be never, because the manufacturers have closed up shop.

Sorry for the extreme length of the post, and for anything unfair I said.

Yes the market is changing, and someone will become famous shooting advertising campaigns with a phone. But large companies like Kodak and Dalsa continue to develop MF sensors for use by MFD manufactures. MFD isn't going away anytime soon!

BTW Hobbyists,Wedding photographer, Photo Journalists and Commercial Shooters all have different wants/needs. One size doesn't fit all. Always use the right tool for the job ... and sometimes a 4x5 Film Camera is the right tool

Yes the market is changing, and someone will become famous shooting advertising campaigns with a phone.

It's been done with an iPhone. Of course, keep in mind that in addition to a 3 megapixel cell phone camera, the shoot used thousands of dollars worth of lighting gear and relied heavily on post-processing.

unexposure

There's at least one big plus to own a MF-Cam as a studiophotographer. It just impresses your customers more than some "casual-dslr". Loads of customers which buy studioportraits, weddingportraits, etc. own one of the "beginners dslrs" which, you must admit this, look pretty the same compared to a 5D MKII/D700 in the eyes of someone whos not that interested in cameras. MF is just another "Level" to show of how pro you are.